[Terrapreta] Fwd: maybe controversial
Gerald Van Koeverden
vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca
Sun Apr 13 08:35:28 CDT 2008
David,
>
> In The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Zukav asks, “How can mutually
> exclusive wavelike and particle-like behaviors both be one and the
> same light?… “They are not properties of light. They are properties
> of our interaction with light.”[i]
>
> "Consider the debate between the physicists of light. We can
> apprehend the idea of light by using the metaphor of the
> interaction of water waves in a ripple tank. In contrast, we can
> comprehend the facts of its energy by how it directly affects metal
> electrons. The pure theoretician explores his reality primarily
> through metaphor. In contrast, the pure empiricist refuses to
> accept anything other than those hierarchies of factors derived
> directly from the nitty-gritty of cold hard facts from properly
> controlled experimentation. These two are the extremes—the abstract
> mystics and the grindstones of learning. We can usefully learn from
> both, but how can we get beyond the mere pragmatism of using the
> theoretician’s spice to enliven the grindstone’s factors, or using
> the empiricist’s facts to salt our mystic’s tail?
>
> Thomas Young’s experiment proves it is a wave by showing how two
> streams of light interfere with each other to produce a diffraction
> pattern. In contrast, Philip Lenard’s experiment proves it is a
> particle. While dwelling in the idea of light as composed of
> different wavelengths of energy, Lenard carried out an experiment
> to show each different color has a different effect on how they
> knock electrons out of metal strips, as though the whole spectrum
> of light is composed of billiard balls of different densities. The
> empirical experiment emerges naturally from dwelling in the
> theoretician’s idea. But when we step back and compare Young’s idea
> with Lenard’s demonstration of its energy, we can’t integrate the
> two into one."
>
> (An extract from my still-looking-for-a-publisher book "Four
> Characters in Search of an Author")
>
> Gerrit
>
> [i] Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: an overview of the new
> physics, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1979, p. 116.
> On 12-Apr-08, at 8:06 PM, David Yarrow wrote:
>> light is neither particle nor wave. it just appears that way to
>> our physical senses. when encountering the mysterious, few things
>> are what they seem. in fact, most things are no-thing at all.
>>
>> it is more accurate and universal to say light is vibration. an
>> oscillation between two polar states of energy. whether light
>> appears as particle or wave is mostly a matter of phase coherence.
>>
>> it is most precise to say that light is food for awareness, and
>> awareness is the ghost hiding behind condensed physical matter --
>> the black hole at the heart of sentience.
>>
>> light has certain properties that can be manipulated to create
>> pattern, rhythm and symmetry. this allows light to carry
>> information, which are the nutrients for consciousness. pattern
>> encoded into light is intelligence, which exists in a dimension
>> well beyond the physical.
>>
>> its like cell chemistry. a cell isn't just hydrogen, oxygen,
>> carbon, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium,
>> phosphorus, magnesium, sulfur, iron, copper.... those elements
>> are organized in structures like DNA that assume specific shapes
>> that encoded specific intelligence.
>>
>> sad to say, virtually everyone except very young children are
>> programmed by belief, and live inside very confining prisons built
>> from their limitation by belief and emotion. sadly, each of us is
>> far more intelligent than we could ever begin to believe -- but
>> then we confront the distinction between brain and mind -- between
>> head and heart.
>>
>> so, while we argue about what is light, and whether the universe
>> is limited by our beliefs, let's not forget about that other great
>> force that holds light together, forms bodies and initiates the
>> quest for "the other" -- love. or do you believe love is just 4-
>> letter word? or a chemical trace left by your neurons?
>>
>> and while we are debating what is light, does anybody know why
>> carbon is black? except as diamonds.
>>
>> for a green & peaceful planet,
>> David Yarrow
>> 44 Gilligan Rd, E Greenbush, NY 12061
>> www.championtrees.org
>> www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org
>> www.farmandfood.org
>> www.SeaAgri.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: lou gold
>> To: Sean K. Barry
>> Cc: Terra Preta
>> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
>>
>> Sean,
>>
>> That's exactly what I said -- "Light is BOTH a particle AND a
>> wave." (At the end of my first paragraph.) But you didn't respond
>> the the issue that I raised -- "we now need BOTH belief AND science."
>>
>> lou
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Sean K. Barry
>> <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
>> Lou,
>>
>> Light is BOTH a particle AND a wave. Believe it or not.
>> Believers make the miracles of modern electronics and optics happen.
>>
>> But if you believed it is a particle, you designed an experiment
>> and found it to be a wave.
>>
>> If you did this, then the good scientists in you ought to stop
>> believing it is a particle anymore.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SKB
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: lou gold
>> To: Sean K. Barry
>> Cc: Jim Joyner ; Terra Preta
>> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
>>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> I guess in old-school science we might separate science and belief
>> -- sort of make it a matter of EITHER science OR belief. But this
>> won't work.
>>
>> They tried that with light thinking it was EITHER a particle OR a
>> wave. If you believed it is a wave, you designed an appropriate
>> experiment, tested your hypothesis, and discovered that it's
>> a wave. But if you believed it is a particle, you designed an
>> experiment and found it to be a wave. It drove them nuts until
>> they realized that the logical paradigm of EITHER/OR was too
>> limited to answer the question. So they transcended the
>> contradiction with an emergent logic of BOTH/AND. Light is BOTH a
>> particle AND a wave.
>>
>> I think that we have arrived at an analogous position with regard
>> to the new earth challenges that exponential population growth has
>> produced. It didn't matter too much what people believed when
>> there were few of us. But know it matters a great deal --
>> precisely, because belief triggers behavior. The fight of science
>> vs belief belongs with Galileo. That was the high-profile EITHER/
>> OR situation. But times have changed and now we need to think in
>> terms of BOTH belief AND science. IMHO, this this the step we are
>> now trying to take. And, just as with the problem of light, we
>> need to BOTH believe AND employ the scientific method.
>>
>> I don't expend much energy (near zero) on the AGW debate because I
>> believe there are additional serious questions such as where are 9
>> billion people going to get enough drinking water, where will the
>> plants that feed them get enough water, and etc? We, the
>> collective WE on this planet have stepped into a whole new
>> experiment. Now we must BOTH believe that our behavior matters AND
>> that we can implement the right actions. This is what I think Gore
>> was talking about.
>>
>> And so, once again someone has given me a chance to spout off.
>> Thank you Sean and thank you to those willing to endure such a
>> flow of words.
>>
>> hugs and blessings to all,
>>
>> lou
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Sean K. Barry
>> <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> I think it might be worthwhile to separate science from beliefs.
>> No scientists' that I know conduct themselves upon belief nearly
>> as much as they use the Scientific Method. This method is born
>> almost as a way to operate sans belief. The wisdom of scientists
>> is not at issue either. The IPCC scientists do not make policy
>> (maybe some policy recommendations in there area of research).
>>
>> Some will say the "Scientific Method" is flawed. They are right.
>> In the realm of observable real world phenomenon, that are all
>> measurable without the aid of the human belief system, I think
>> that the "Scientific Method" serves mankind better than our
>> beliefs. I will suspend my belief and/or disbelief to use my 5
>> sense faculties, my mind, and my hands, to try and effect a change
>> in what I observe happening in the world. I think this makes me
>> appear to be a "strong believer" in the validity of the
>> "Scientific Method", though.
>>
>> Hehe ... see, so can I use my belief as a tool, too? To what
>> end? To try and convince anyone who disbelieves about the science
>> that I think I understand? Ahhhhh ... I can't do it ... no one
>> cares what I believe! I'd rather not discuss this in terms of
>> beliefs. I've got not problem with anyone's beliefs (unless of
>> course they are into proselytizing and/or ramming it into my head).
>>
>> I reject belief as a tool for climate scientists.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SKB
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: lou gold
>> To: Jim Joyner
>> Cc: Terra Preta
>> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Well, reading your response does make me think that you are a man
>> of strong beliefs.
>>
>> No, I am not diminishing anything when I say that egos and beliefs
>> are tools. What is at issue is not whether we have them but rather
>> how we use them. Right now we are hammering the earth. I think you
>> would agree with that statement and not call it a "badly
>> fallacious analogy," or would you? You see, it all depends on how
>> something is (or is not) used. So I will go back my analogy: a
>> good carpenter knows when not to use his hammer and a good
>> scientist is careful about what his discovery is used for. In the
>> final analysis his choice will require wisdom more than knowledge.
>> And what he considers as wise will be very influenced by his
>> beliefs. There no getting around it. So I truly believe that it is
>> better to openly share one's beliefs and reveal their implications
>> in action so that we might better understand whether to use them
>> or not.
>>
>> And there is nothing at all wrong with "wish" as you have
>> expressed it (close to a "desire"), Ghandi famously said, "We must
>> be the change that we desire." Yes, this is indeed "be-lief." St
>> Francis said the same in another way, "It is more blessed to give
>> than to receive." And little me wishes a future full of big trees
>> and happy children, so I must be here saying these things. You are
>> correct, my "be-wish" is not knowledge but it guides my search and
>> hopefully leads me to it. Do you really wish to make this beacon
>> dim? What would you use instead?
>>
>> If I say, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" it might (and has
>> historically) lead to wars and slaughter. But if I say that and
>> also say, "We are all Children of God" the outcome is quite
>> different. And the difference that makes the difference in this
>> case is ... belief! If properly used and understood, what a
>> glorious thing it is!
>>
>> But there's a limit (as you suggest). It's not good to get too
>> attached to your beliefs because then you will take them
>> "personally" and THAT is where the mischief begins. Buddha saw
>> this clearly and therefore counseled for "no attachment" rather
>> than "no belief." And as this detachment develops it becomes, yes,
>> just like a hammer that one can pick up or put down as is
>> appropriate to the situation. It's called "right action." And that
>> is precisely what I BELIEVE we are all looking for.
>>
>> A bow of gratitude to you (and this forum) for allowing me to
>> "spout off" a bit. Apologies if there was (is) any offense in my
>> words.
>>
>> hugs and blessings,
>>
>> lou
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net>
>> wrote:
>> Lou,
>>
>> I would agree that beliefs abound; I would not agree that they are
>> necessary for human life, certainly not survival. They rather seem
>> an anathema to life to me. To say, "egos and beliefs, like other
>> tools such as hammers, are only tools" is to use a badly
>> fallacious analogy.
>>
>> Please don't confuse knowledge with beliefs. Knowledge is
>> necessary for humans to survive, and difficult enough, But belief
>> (whether correct or incorrect) is bound to something purely
>> personal, and I mean that in the worst sense. ("Person" or
>> "personal" comes from persona, a mask, a false front, the ego --
>> in a sense something that doesn't really exist except in thought.
>> At best an illusion, at worst a delusion. The root word in belief
>> is "lief" or wish. To say I believe is to say I be-wish . . . not
>> a statement of knowledge)
>>
>> If I say, "the sun is coming up at 6:30AM", that is simply a
>> statement of content that may be right or wrong : knowledge. It is
>> not who I think I am. One can easily disagree with knowledge as
>> right or wrong . . . if that is all it is, then no one will care.
>>
>> If, however, I say, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God,
>> the content of the statement isn't really the issue (right or
>> wrong, rational or irrational). What is being stated is who I
>> think I am. If that statement is threatened (disagreed upon), it
>> is the same a as death threat to the speaker -- and he/she will
>> fight as if death itself were at the door. Given legitimate use of
>> weapons (gov't), he/she will dominate other life by force. Never
>> fails. No exceptions. Just look around.
>>
>> To put beliefs on a level with "tools such as hammers" is to be
>> Neville Chamberlain holding up a piece of paper signed by Hitler
>> and saying, "you see, everything will be alright, they simply see
>> things differently that we do".
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> lou gold wrote:
>>>
>>> yes, yes belief is only belief. like ego it is a necessary tool
>>> for survival. just try to function without any beliefs (such as
>>> crossing a street is potentially dangerous).
>>>
>>> but egos and beliefs, like other tools such as hammers, are only
>>> tools. it is important to know when not to use them.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> Probably, the most dangerous commodity on the face of the planet
>>> is human belief systems. Not their content necessarily (which may
>>> or may not be correct), but just act of the believing, ultimately
>>> an expression of ego.
>>>
>>> The worst of such belief systems are argued with the notion that
>>> logic makes them valid. They conveniently forget that all
>>> knowledge is based on assumptions or axioms, and that the quality
>>> of all thought (and probably the quality of human life) rests on
>>> the quality of assumptions made. They start with a belief, then
>>> they use the rational facility to justify it. Religions,
>>> governments and political ideologies come to mind. Sometimes,
>>> science. Some belief systems seem more innocuous than others.
>>> But, it may be they just don't have the guns yet to enforce the
>>> belief.
>>>
>>> These belief systems have been and are the source of practically
>>> all human suffering on the planet, not to mention the innocent
>>> bystander species.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://lougold.blogspot.com
>> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
>> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://lougold.blogspot.com
>> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
>> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://lougold.blogspot.com
>> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
>> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080413/7ba57fd5/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list